Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (2.57 seconds)Section 48 in The Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raj Kumar Dey And Others vs Tarapada Dey And Others on 14 September, 1987
"20] In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit , an
act of court shall prejudice no man, shall be applicable. This
maxim is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a
safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other
maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the law does not
compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law
itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does
in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling
impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that
general exception in the consideration of particular cases. The
applicability of the aforesaid maxims has been approved by
this Court in Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey (1987 (4) SCC
Gursharan Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors on 2 February, 1996
398), Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee
(1996 (2) SCC 459) and Mohammod Gazi v. State of M.P. and
others (2000(4) SCC 342)." (emphasis supplied)
Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 31 March, 2000
398), Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee
(1996 (2) SCC 459) and Mohammod Gazi v. State of M.P. and
others (2000(4) SCC 342)." (emphasis supplied)
Committee-Gfil vs Libra Buildtech P.Ltd.. on 30 September, 2015
In the case of Rajeev Nohwar (supra), the Supreme Court found that
the case of the appellant therein for refund was not barred by any substantive
provision and while exercising its power under Article 142, directed that the
SSP 18/20
wp 8792 of 2025.doc
refund be made along with interest @ 6% p.a.
Article 25 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hari Chand Ghanshyam Das And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 8 January, 1991
In Hari Chand v. State of U.P. 2012(1) AWC 316, the
Allahabad High Court dealing with similar controversy in a
stamp matter held that the payment of interest is a
necessary corollary to the retention of the money to be
returned under order of the appellate or revisional authority.
The High Court directed the State to pay interest @ 8% for
the period, the money was so retained i.e. from the date of
deposit till the date of actual repayment/refund.